Making the Case for Quality
November 2010
Quality Revolution Reduces Defects,
Drives Sales Growth at 3M
At a Glance . . .
For several years, problems
with abrasives belts
topped the list of industrial
abrasives customer
complaints at 3M.
By combining Lean
Six Sigma and a Top-
200 customer focus,
3M improved its belt
fabrication processes.
The belt project led to
improved quality as
defects in parts per
million were reduced by
a factor of 28 times, and
at the same time, sales
grew by 54 percent.
The improvement team
entered this project in
the ASQ International
Team Excellence Award
process and was named
a finalist for 2009-10.
ASQ www.asq.org Page 1 of 4
by Janet Jacobsen
Seven years ago, leaders in 3Ms
abrasives business saw that customer
complaints were on the rise and belt
failures were the no. 1 cause. The orga-
nizations sales representatives were
spending 40 percent of their time han-
dling complaints instead of pursuing
sales activities. Customers suffered and
the organization lost sales, which limited
business growth and financial objectives.
As one vice president declared, it was
time for a quality revolution.
About 3M and Coated Abrasives
Members of the Abrasives Belt Fabrication Improvement Team,
3M was founded more than a century from left to right: Don Chan, Mark Nyberg, Tim Ness, Eric Rice,
ago with a single technologyabra- Steve Maack, Bernadette Rasmussen, and Dan Miller.
sives, often called sandpaper. Since then,
the organization has grown into a $25 billion diversified technology giant, serving customers in six
market-focused businesses. The abrasives division is part of the industrial and transportation business
and provides innovative products such as tapes, adhesives, coatings, and abrasives for industrial and
transportation customers. The organizations coated abrasives come in many converted forms such as
portable belts, back stand belts, utility sheets, cartridge rolls, utility shop rolls, and more.
Setting the Stage for a Quality Revolution
As customers of 3Ms abrasives products provided feedbackfrequently complaintsto the sales, cus-
tomer service, and quality teams, the need for significant quality improvement was apparent. When the
executive vice president of the industrial and transportation unit declared the need for a quality revolu-
tion, he noted, To achieve our growth goals we need a step-change improvement in quality. Strategic
goals rolled down to every division, factory, and product line with annual targets. Soon thereafter, the
abrasives division established the following goals:
Reduce defects in parts per million (DPPM) by 25 percent per year.
Trim total complaint resolution time by 15 percent per year.
Specifically, the business unit initiated an improvement project to reduce belt DPPM from 12,000 to
500. To spearhead this work, the Abrasives Belt Fabrication Improvement Team was chartered in 2003.
All participants on the team are ASQ members by virtue of 3Ms and control (DMAIC) model to identify possible factors causing
ASQ Site membership for its Maplewood, MN, facility. Joe variation in 3Ms products and processes. More details about the
Pribyl, the abrasives quality manager, served as a coach for the tools used to identify root causes for both the Top-200 process
improvement team. and Lean Six Sigma approach are shown in Figure 1.

The project worked to create value by providing more robust
products that would perform better and longer to increase cus-
tomers productivity. This coincides with 3Ms corporate goal:
Growth through customer success by building value for our cus-
tomers.
Team members estimated that, if successful, the belt improvement
project would have a positive impact on several goals, such as:
Data and data analysis were key in both the Top-200 and Lean
Six Sigma improvement processes to help determine root causes
and relationships. First, with the Top- 200, complaint and belt
testing information was sliced and diced to support analysis
and conversations with key customers about problems they
experienced with belt products. 3M also established an extensive
data collection system to gather data from raw materials, process
information, finished product testing, and waste.

More robust products.
Reduced defects.
Better processes and product understanding.
Increased process capability.
Using a Two-Pronged Approach for Quality
Improvement
When a situational analysis confirmed that belt and splice com-
plaints were the no. 1 quality complaint for industrial abrasives,
the team developed a two-pronged approach to steer improvement:
Act immediately on the needs of 3Ms leading customers
through a Top-200 program.
Drive long-term continuous improvement with Lean Six
Sigma.
Identifying Potential Root Causes
To pinpoint the root causes of belt complaints, the improvement
team used process mapping, cause and effect diagrams, Pareto
charts, and other quality tools. For the Top-200 process, the
team used basic graphing, data analysis, and other communica-
tion tools to gather information from customers. Then, they
began the Lean Six Sigma approach, attacking more chronic
problems with the structured define, measure, analyze, improve,
Both internal and external stakeholders provided valuable input,
as sales, technical service representatives, and end users supplied
problem information and samples. For example, team members
met with a Top-200 customer to complete a cause and effect
matrix focusing on belt life and reasons why the belts could fail.
Engaging customers in this type of partnering activity proved to
be a powerful business tool for the organization; subsequently
other business units have since replicated this approach.
The final root causes and improvement path selection for the
Top-200 process followed an investigative approach. The team
used 5 Whys, stakeholder dialogue, consensus, and documenta-
tion. On the other hand, statistical software to generate trend
charts, compare data sets, and calculate capability values guided
the Lean Six Sigma path.
Validating Final Root Causes
With final root causes in hand, the team validated each cause,
as depicted in Figure 2. In the Top-200 program, the final
causes centered around instructions, handling procedures, and
application settings. These were validated through internal test-
ing, audits, customer trials, and customer service visits. In the
Lean Six Sigma process, final root causes focused on equipment
capability, process control, and inadequate testing. Gauge repeat-
ability and reproducibility (R&R) studies, equipment monitoring

Figure 1Methods and tools to identify root causes and improvement opportunities
Method Process: How, Who, Rationale Why Tool Was Used Possible Root Causes
Lack of procedures
Daily complaint review and Incomplete instructions
Top-200 Define Top-200 customers Analyze and communicate with sales
scorecard update Tests not predicting performance
Product uses/application
Product lab testing
CFR database
Tools Pareto by sales Customer visits
Excel
E-mail and phone
Who Sales management Manufacturing quality Quality coordinators
Equipment capability
Lean Six Sigma Define Measure Analyze Process measurement
Test method development
Process map Failure mode and effects analysis
Project charter Cause & effect (FMEA), Risk priority numbering
Tools
Stakeholder analysis Gauge R&R (RPN), Pareto chart, Process
Graphing capability, Control charts
Product manager
Who Black Belt, Green Belt, Project team Project team
Master Black Belt

ASQ www.asq.org Page 2 of 4

studies, and finished product testing were useful for validating with Lean Six Sigma centered on process equipment modifica-
the suspected causes. tions. The team validated these equipment changes internally
through hypothesis testing, process capability measurement, and
Developing Solutions designed experiments. These experiments produced response
surface plots and mathematical models that helped define pro-
Next, the team focused on possible solutions in the Top-200 pro- cess windows and targets, support troubleshooting, and provide
cess with brainstorming activities, experimentation, and sample training media for the team.
testing. Possible solutions were developed somewhat intuitively,
based on experience, speed, and cost of implementation. Data Overcoming Resistance
analysis came into play after problem samples were tested,
allowing the team to compare them to historical information. As with any process changes, the team did encounter some
resistance. Internally, as the Top-200 process changes were
In the Lean Six Sigma process, the team employed process map-
introduced, resistance to the extra daily work required of
ping, cause and effect diagrams, and failure mode and effects
operators surfaced. To help overcome this resistance, the team
analysis (FMEA) for developing potential solutions to the belt
gathered stakeholder input on how to improve the Top-200
issues. Team members used the FMEA tool after the first three
phases of the DMAIC cycle to create a score or risk value for flyer, a bright yellow order form that travels with the material
potential solutionsthose with the highest scores earning the from station to station. After the order forms were modified and
highest priority. Risk values were calculated based on severity, customer success stories were shared, the team quickly secured
occurrence, and detection of the failure or variation in the pro- commitment and buy in.
cess or product variable.
Reducing Defects Leads to Increased Sales
The criteria for selecting final solutions were similar for the
Top-200 and Lean Six Sigma approaches and included trial Prior to implementing the final solutions, several modifica-
results, expected customer impact, speed and ease of change, tions were necessary. For example, with the Top-200, changes
as well as implementation costs. As illustrated in Figure 3, the were made to products and standards, special handling proce-
team selected final solutions for the Top-200 by completing a dures such as using new splice tape, and operator training. On
customer resolution evaluation that involved reviewing com- the Lean Six Sigma side, typical changes included equipment
plaints, samples, test results, and customer feedback. These were upgrades as well as process, product, and documentation updates.
documented in a Top-200 scorecard. For the Lean Six Sigma
projects, the FMEA risk numbers were ranked and entered into This team project created several positive intangible and tangible
Pareto charts. The team also used an old-fashioned gut check results, shown in Figure 4.
as members reviewed the lower-scoring variables and failure
modes from the FMEA to ensure they had not overlooked any A key result of the Top-200 and Lean Six Sigma efforts is
worthwhile solutions. evident in the organizations belt fabrication DPPM chart
shown in Figure 5, which illustrates that 3M reduced its DPPM
Validating Solutions from 12,000 to just 475 in seven years. Not surprisingly, cus-
tomer complaints dropped by 90 percent in the corresponding
The most common solutions in the Top-200 process involved timeframe and the business realized the benefits of customer sat-
product specification changes, such as new splice tape or splice isfaction, loyalty, and abrasives sales growth of 54 percent. By
preparation condition. These solutions were validated internally driving the belt defects to such low levels, the team project sup-
with sample production and internal product testing. Externally,
the solutions were verified by following up with customers after Figure 3Selecting final solutions
trial orders were shipped. On the other side, common solutions Top-200 Process
Customer resolution
Figure 2Root causes and validation Criteria: evaluation
Complaint and sample
Final Root Causes Validation Customer impact
review
Internal tests Speed of change
Testing results
Sample or trial
Documentation updates and Customer and
Lack of procedures outcomes
approvals representative feedback
Top-200 Incomplete instructions Top-200 scorecard for
Audits
Improper product use/application documentation
Customer trials Final
Technical service customer visits Solutions and
Gauge R&R and multi-vari studies Criteria From C&E: Actions
Poor equipment capability Customer impact Lean Six Sigma / DMA
Equipment capability
measurement Capital investment FMEA
Lean Lack of process control
Ease of change RPN values
Six Sigma Inadequate test method Finished product testing Time to implement Pareto Natural break
development Voice of customer aligned with Impact on productivity, and gut check
voice of process waste, and service

ASQ www.asq.org Page 3 of 4

 ported the quality revolution by meeting defect reduction, cost of
poor quality, and complaint response time goals.
Sustaining the Results
3M sustains the process changes through its ISO 9001 proce-
dures, which require audits, documentation, quality metrics,
corrective actions, and management reviews. The team devel-
oped extensive control plans for both Top-200 and Lean Six
Sigma projects. These plans, along with documentation, audits,
and frequent training, continue to sustain 3Ms quality improve-
ments over time. Several quality and business metrics are
charted and monitored through plant dashboards for any statisti-
cal shifts that may warrant attention. In addition, external and
internal feedback data are gathered through satisfaction and loy-
alty surveys and monitored to ensure that changes are delivering
the expected results and continue to align with the organizations
goals and strategies. Team members report that the Top-200
process is now a way of life at 3M. The organization follows up
with all critical accounts by conducting a trial production order
and a tech service customer visit to ensure that 3M products
meet the customers requirements.
Another benefit from this project was improved product and
process understanding (PPU), notes Pribyl. He explains that PPU Visit 3Ms website at www.3m.com to learn more about the
is the organizations comprehensive quality improvement meth-
odology linking voice of the customer data back through tests,
product specifications, processes, procedures, and raw materi-
als. By truly understanding the science and technology behind
our products and processes, we can control critical variables and About the Author
deliver consistent products to our customers, says Pribyl, an
ASQ Certified Quality Manager.
Lessons Learned
Earning Recognition and Looking Forward
As 3M enjoyed the internal and external benefits of this project,
others took note of the teams accomplishments. Not only was
this project one of two 2009 corporate quality achievement gold
award winners at 3M, it also was named one of 28 finalists in
ASQs International Team Excellence Award (ITEA) process for
2009-10. This marked the first time that a 3M team participated
in the award process.
The next challenge, notes Pribyl, is to continue the momentum
from the team project and reduce the DPPM by another 25 per-
cent each year. He says that newly introduced products will add
to that challenge. We are launching many new revolutionary
abrasive products, some with four times longer life. These new
longer lasting products require our belt splices to hold together
that much longer.
For More Information
Details on the International Team Excellence Award process
are available at http://wcqi.asq.org/team-competition/.
To learn more about this project, contact Joe Pribyl at
jgpribyl@mmm.com.
organization.
Details on the benefits of ASQ organizational memberships
are located at www.asq.org/organizations.
Janet Jacobsen is a freelance writer specializing in quality and
compliance topics. A graduate of Drake University, she resides
in Cedar Rapids, IA.

In addition to the improved PPU, Pribyl cites three important

lessons learned from this team project:

Work directly with customers to understand how they use

products.
Develop tests that predict performance.
Use data, not emotions, to make decisions.

Figure 4Intangible and tangible results Figure 5Belt fabrication DPPM

Tangible benefits Intangible benefits 12,000 ppm

Reduced waste Customer value Top-200 Process

External Lean Six Sigma Projects
Increased productivity Improved relations
stakeholders
Fewer emergencies Improved morale
Customer satisfaction 7,900 ppm Customer
complaints
Improved DPPM are down
Product and process understanding Customer loyalty 90%
Critical to quality (CTQ) capabilities Customer value
Internal Variable interactions Brand value
2,900 ppm
stakeholders Financial Improved relations 2,300 ppm
1878 ppm 1598 ppm
Increased growth Enhanced 3M image 1107 ppm
774 ppm 475 ppm
Reduced waste Improved morale
Improved productivity Pre-2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fewer emergencies Belt Splice/Fabrication DPPM YTD

ASQ www.asq.org Page 4 of 4